Why liberals should love the Second Amendment

I came across the piece yesterday and feel compelled to share with the board. There's a lot of debate going on both against and in favor gun control
and I think the writer here hits on a very logical position. Please read it through and give it some thought....

Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be
restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some
of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with
preventing crime.

So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as
vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.

No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties.
All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the
president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our
radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights. But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying
member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that certain restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government
gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth. We complain about free
speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment. But when it comes further
restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms, liberals are not even silent; they are vociferously in favor of such restrictions.
Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Chicago and Washington D.C. bans on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable, even though
the Supreme Court has now said otherwise.

No. 4: It doesn't matter if you can use it.
Fine, you say. Have your big, scary guns. It's not like you actually stand a chance in fighting against the United States government. The Army has
bigger, badder weapons than any private citizen. Your most deadly gun is no match for their tanks, their helicopters, their atom bombs. Maybe two
hundred years ago, citizens stood a chance in a fight against government, but not today. The Second Amendment is obsolete. Tell that to the Iraqi
"insurgents" who are putting up a pretty good fight against our military might with fairly primitive weapons. The Second Amendment is obsolete?

No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.
In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty
field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night. It is the right of revolution. Let me say that again: It is
the right of revolution.

Think about that last quote people. At it's absolute core, the Second Amendment is our last option to defend against a tyrannical government. Remove
that option, and every single person living in the United States is at the mercy of whatever whim those in power choose to dictate.

Lastly, I'll wrap up with these two quotes from the Supreme Court of the United States:

“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying arm… is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If
cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows and
not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” -Wilson vs. State

“A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual
citizen.” Warren v. District of Columbia, 444A.2d 1(D.C.App.181)

Anyway, read on and check the emotional responses to this issue at the door.

Our founding fathers were "liberal" in the sense that they fought back against oppression.

I am radically liberal when it comes to so-called social issues.

That being said, I believe that the smaller the government the better. That puts me in the same boat as the conservatives. Unless you want to talk
about sex or drugs. Then they LOVE the big government.

I think the OP raises a VERY important point. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting deer or defending against burglars. It is about REVOLUTION. It's
been over two hundred years since our "revolution" and look what happens when we become complacent.

Def, are you responding to Redmoon? Why so confrontational? His point is still very valid, if the 2nd goes away, you can be sure encroachment will
significantly increase. It's pretty clear protests and signature gathering petitions hold no value to those incharge.

About 1.4 million guns, or an annual average of 232,400, were stolen during burglaries and other property crimes in the six-year period from 2005
through 2010.
On average, firearms were stolen in an annual average of about 4% of the 2.4 million burglaries occurring each year, in 2% of the 529,200 robberies,
and in less than 1% of the 13.6 million other crimes involving theft from 2005 through 2010.
From 2005 through 2010, 86% of burglaries and 75% of other property crimes involving a stolen firearm were reported to police.

People would be crazy to try invade when they know a lot of Americans would armed..

Today`s military of any country would never be afraid of
armed civilians...it is your military they fear not you people...best excuse ever.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.